Re: ERAM and net police

[Jerry Brown <jerbrown@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Net police, Bruce? Last I checked, this was a private mailing list, in
existence due to the vision and generosity of Mr. Richard Welty. The
"net" provides a large part of the transport medium, but (as some list
members will attest) access to the "net" is not necessary to
participate. Perhaps you have this list confused with the largest
signal-to-noise ratio black hole of them all, Usenet.

Being a private mailing list, the content can be restricted in any
manner the owner wishes. Please dispense with the silly notion that you
(or anyone beside Mr. Welty) has any sort free speech rights here. You
and I are allowed to post solely by the good graces of Mr. Welty.

Re: Mr. Kibort's postings, irregardless of the merits of his device, a
number of list members have expressed a desire for him to cease and
desist posting publicly regarding said device. Common sense and
consideration for others would dictate that he comply. He has not chosen
to follow a mature course of action in this matter. (To be fair, neither
have some other members, but that is not the issue at hand.)

Of course none of the above restricts you and Mr. Kibort from
maintaining private communications, and that's as it should be.

Just my 2 cents.

- -jerry

Bruce Augenstein wrote:
> Although the jury is still obviously out regarding your device, other net
> folks who would like to police net content are out of line - especially when
> they have the audacity to think that they're speaking for everyone else.
> 
> At least one of us (me) thinks that you have an interesting concept. Why,
> I've even read another post or two (from folks who apparently have neurons
> that actually fire) in regard to your device that actually seem positive, or
> at least neutral.
> 
> Imagine! Lack of complete unanimity on the net!

------------------------------